alethia_hide_cockpit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: the runtime keeps running and continues to accept tool calls, clarifying that this is non-destructive and only affects the UI. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences entirely focused on the action and its scope. No fluff or redundant wording; every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter UI-hiding tool, the description is fully complete. It explains what happens to the runtime, which is the one behavioral nuance the agent needs to know. The sibling set (show_cockpit, kill_switch) makes the contrast implicit but sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). The description needs to explain no parameters, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. It correctly focuses on the action rather than parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Hide the Alethia cockpit window' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like show_cockpit and activate_kill_switch by clarifying that the runtime continues, making the action's scope explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: use this to dismiss the visible window while keeping the runtime operational. It implies the contrast with show_cockpit and non-destructive tools, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.